Not really. But the title of the thread gets at what I'd like to talk about (innovative, no?) I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not being able to publically question or take issue with the colored comments of mods and admins. A couple things come to mind as possibilities, but I'd like to hear from you (or be pointed to a thread where it's been discussed), if you'd be willing to pull back the curtain a bit. What really made me think about this was the recent CAF thread, where some of the tactics for silencing critics and dissenters was touched on. Not that I think oc.net bans people for flimsy reasons, or worse does so secretly. Nonetheless, as good as oc.net is at allowing freedom of expression (and I've been particularly aware of, and appreciative of, that graciousness), there still does seem to be some restrictions on the freedom of expression when it comes to moderatorial happenings. So, again, rather than speculating about the reasons, I'd like to hear the reasoning from you fine people.

Not really. But the title of the thread gets at what I'd like to talk about (innovative, no?) I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not being able to publically question or take issue with the colored comments of mods and admins. A couple things come to mind as possibilities, but I'd like to hear from you (or be pointed to a thread where it's been discussed), if you'd be willing to pull back the curtain a bit. What really made me think about this was the recent CAF thread, where some of the tactics for silencing critics and dissenters was touched on. Not that I think oc.net bans people for flimsy reasons, or worse does so secretly. Nonetheless, as good as oc.net is at allowing freedom of expression (and I've been particularly aware of, and appreciative of, that graciousness), there still does seem to be some restrictions on the freedom of expression when it comes to moderatorial happenings. So, again, rather than speculating about the reasons, I'd like to hear the reasoning from you fine people.

Just a thought...over-arching thought.

All good order, including even that of the universe according to revelation, is subject to authority.

When that authority is open to challenge from those who are not charged with the keeping of good order, and that challenge is public and unrestrained, then all good order is suspended and replaced, even momentarily, with mob rule.

Not really. But the title of the thread gets at what I'd like to talk about (innovative, no?) I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not being able to publically question or take issue with the colored comments of mods and admins. A couple things come to mind as possibilities, but I'd like to hear from you (or be pointed to a thread where it's been discussed), if you'd be willing to pull back the curtain a bit. What really made me think about this was the recent CAF thread, where some of the tactics for silencing critics and dissenters was touched on. Not that I think oc.net bans people for flimsy reasons, or worse does so secretly. Nonetheless, as good as oc.net is at allowing freedom of expression (and I've been particularly aware of, and appreciative of, that graciousness), there still does seem to be some restrictions on the freedom of expression when it comes to moderatorial happenings. So, again, rather than speculating about the reasons, I'd like to hear the reasoning from you fine people.

Just a thought...over-arching thought.

All good order, including even that of the universe according to revelation, is subject to authority.

When that authority is open to challenge from those who are not charged with the keeping of good order, and that challenge is public and unrestrained, then all good order is suspended and replaced, even momentarily, with mob rule.

I am in favor of current board policy FWIW.

M.

Yes, I tend to agree with this moderation policy as well. This is the same restriction used in courtrooms, in churches (can you dare challenge a priest's decision in front of the congregation even it's wrong?), even in the US Congress. There is a better more restrained way of challenging a moderator's decision without publicly undermining the moderator's authority, and that is through private messaging or appealing to a higher up. Even in the US, where we protect free speech, that doesn't mean we publicly question the judge's decision right there at the moment. We appeal the decision.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Not really. But the title of the thread gets at what I'd like to talk about (innovative, no?) I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not being able to publically question or take issue with the colored comments of mods and admins. A couple things come to mind as possibilities, but I'd like to hear from you (or be pointed to a thread where it's been discussed), if you'd be willing to pull back the curtain a bit. What really made me think about this was the recent CAF thread, where some of the tactics for silencing critics and dissenters was touched on. Not that I think oc.net bans people for flimsy reasons, or worse does so secretly. Nonetheless, as good as oc.net is at allowing freedom of expression (and I've been particularly aware of, and appreciative of, that graciousness), there still does seem to be some restrictions on the freedom of expression when it comes to moderatorial happenings. So, again, rather than speculating about the reasons, I'd like to hear the reasoning from you fine people.

Just a thought...over-arching thought.

All good order, including even that of the universe according to revelation, is subject to authority.

When that authority is open to challenge from those who are not charged with the keeping of good order, and that challenge is public and unrestrained, then all good order is suspended and replaced, even momentarily, with mob rule.

I am in favor of current board policy FWIW.

M.

I too agree with the policy of carrying on some discussions privately. There's enough bickering goes on around here without adding to it.

However, it might be helpful to have an easier way of finding out why someone has been warned, moderated, or whatever without having to go through all of the offender's posts.

The moderation policies here are WAY more lenient than the Holy Office of CAF. Trust me on that one!

Deus Vult!

« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 12:02:02 PM by Xenia1918 »

Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

Not really. But the title of the thread gets at what I'd like to talk about (innovative, no?) I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not being able to publically question or take issue with the colored comments of mods and admins. A couple things come to mind as possibilities, but I'd like to hear from you (or be pointed to a thread where it's been discussed), if you'd be willing to pull back the curtain a bit. What really made me think about this was the recent CAF thread, where some of the tactics for silencing critics and dissenters was touched on. Not that I think oc.net bans people for flimsy reasons, or worse does so secretly. Nonetheless, as good as oc.net is at allowing freedom of expression (and I've been particularly aware of, and appreciative of, that graciousness), there still does seem to be some restrictions on the freedom of expression when it comes to moderatorial happenings. So, again, rather than speculating about the reasons, I'd like to hear the reasoning from you fine people.

Just a thought...over-arching thought.

All good order, including even that of the universe according to revelation, is subject to authority.

When that authority is open to challenge from those who are not charged with the keeping of good order, and that challenge is public and unrestrained, then all good order is suspended and replaced, even momentarily, with mob rule.

I am in favor of current board policy FWIW.

M.

I too agree with the policy of carrying on some discussions privately. There's enough bickering goes on around here without adding to it.

However, it might be helpful to have an easier way of finding out why someone has been warned, moderated, or whatever without having to go through all of the offender's posts.

This would be helpful when someone we like gets moderated and we are baffled by it, but I think it also gives the person who has been moderated a bit of privacy. It is entirely possible that they accept their moderation and just want to move on. As it stands, I operate on a number of forums and there are times I disagree (not publicly but privately within my own head) with the moderators decisions, I still think their methods and manners are among some of the best I have run into. We are allowed a high degree of freedom of expression on a wide range of topics. In some areas the moderation is VERY heavy, but these are usually areas where the conversation should be focused. In other areas (the Political Forum) I have very rarely seen the moderators step in, and these are usually in the most dire of circumstances. On one of the WWII forums I am on the mods step in without the slightest provocation and lock topics just because "this discussion has run it's course".

Just somethings I have been wanting to say for a while and finally found an excuse to do so.

But yes, I would be interested in hearing the official response to the OP, though I think I have an idea as to why (read elijahmaria's response).

I think the fact that we have allowed this discussion to remain open should say a lot. Our moderator team here is very diverse and puts in a lot of behind the scenes effort on a volunteer basis. There is a whole other section that only the moderators can see. It is in this section that all your "report to moderator" actions are sent and dealt with. Many communications occur through the private message system. We try to follow the instructions of the Apostles and talk to the person in private (communication through the private message system) and, if the issue persist then, we bring forth a public warning.

We live in a time where everyone feels they need to know everything about everyone but, this is not healthy. As always if you feel that you are being "moderated" for unjust cause there is an appeals process. I will attest that the moderator team here takes their jobs very seriously and tries to be fair and even handed in making this board work.

As for banning it is a rare occurrence, except for the spam bots that try to flood our forum with junk. There are a number of people I would like to ban because I find them annoying and petty little people but, most of these people have never even received a warning because, as annoying as I find them, they have never broken any forum rules. All of these rules are spelled out in this section and tacked on top to be very open. When someone is banned it is done for good reason and much discussion amongst the moderator staff. To get all the moderators to agree on something is an amazing feat because of our diversity. In every case where a frequent poster has been banned, it has come at an almost universal decision of the entire moderator staff.

Finally we have the policy of not questioning moderator actions in public because it derails the discussions people care about. So you know we will be discussing this post and some sort of action may or may not come out of it. How is that for openness?